6.1.4 Other - Any data that ostensibly indicates the need to consider the prisoner's unsuitability to continue serving in the IPS.
6.2 Towards the end of each period of service, the guard will be examined whether the guard meets the criteria for evaluation that have been determined. It is sufficient to find that the prison guard's performance does not meet one of the criteria for evaluation in order for the prison guard's continued service to be considered. The warden's commanders will be required to give their opinion on the matter, taking into account all periods of service.
Appendix A to the procedure details the criteria for evaluating a prison guard and states, inter alia, that the non-extension of a prison guard's service should be considered when a criminal proceeding is being conducted against him, "even before the proceeding becomes conclusive due to the existence of sufficient administrative evidence, the severity of the offenses and the damage to discipline or the image of the organization." This is especially true in cases where there is a concern of security risk due to "close ties with criminal elements and/or inappropriate behavior," and in any case where "a figure that may prima facie indicate the need to consider the prisoner's unsuitability to continue serving in the IPS."
From the general to the individual
- In the present case, at the time of the decision in the appellant's case, a criminal investigation was being conducted against him on suspicion of committing serious offenses of committing an indecent act and sexual harassment of a detainee, obstruction of investigation proceedings and impeachment by threats. In the framework of an inquiry conducted by the appellant with an intelligence officer in the IPS, he denied sexual contact between him and the complainant, but admitted that he had had personal conversations with him, that he had touched the detainee's stomach "in a friendly manner", and that after the complaint was filed, he turned to the complainant and asked him if he was angry with him. As noted by the Court for Administrative Affairs, the administrative evidence that was before the relevant IPS officials - the testimonies of the complainant and other prison guards - established a solid basis for the decision not to extend the appellant's service. As has been said in the past in a similar context, the serious offenses of which the appellant was suspected dropped from under his suitability to serve as a prison guard (a burnt matter). In addition to the aforesaid, with the consent of the appellant's counsel, we also reviewed the confidential material in the appellant's case ex parte, and we found that he too supports the decision not to extend his service. On the other hand, an examination of the main arguments of the appellant's counsel in the hearing proceedings in the criminal case reveals that they are of no assistance to the appellant, inter alia, taking into account the confidential material.
Moreover, in fact, the appellant's counsel did not appeal the basis underlying the decision not to extend his service, and focused on the defects that occurred, according to him, in the "dismissal" proceeding, as well as his claim of selective enforcement. However, we did not find any substance in these arguments either.
- As to the appellant's claim regarding defects in the hearing process, and in the framework of the interview conducted for him with the Central Intelligence Agency, she has nothing to rely on. The IPS Service Periods Procedure also regulates the process of handling a recommendation not to extend a period of service. In accordance with Section 11 of the Procedure, if it is recommended not to extend the period of service of a prison guard, the relevant district commander or a member of the Ombudsman, in accordance with the circumstances, shall convene a committee to examine the recommendation, to which the prison guard himself will be summoned to make his statement or to present his arguments in writing. Insofar as the committee recommends not to extend the service of a prison guard, the prison guard is notified of this at the time of the interview, as well as his right to a hearing.
- It therefore appears that contrary to the appellant's claim, in view of the existence of a formal hearing after the recommendation, there is no substance to the claim that his right to a hearing was violated because he was not represented in the framework of the recommending committee. The Recommendations Committee is a preliminary stage to the hearing process, and even if we assume that there is a duty to allow the representation of an attorney in it, a matter in which rivets are avoided, the "defect" that occurred in the framework of the proceeding in the Recommendations Committee is not a defect in the hearing process that was held afterwards. Contrary to the appellant's claim, these stages are not interrelated and can be separated. A committee for the extension of service separately and a separate hearing procedure. In this context, I will also note that the Commissioner's decision to suspend the appellant is also not connected to the process of extending his service, and it is not possible to connect the matter, as the appellant tried to do.
- The appellant's claim of selective enforcement and discrimination is also unsubstantiated. This claim was based on data received from the Civil Service Commission, the Israel Police, and the Israel Prison Service, as part of freedom of information requests, regarding the dismissal of employees suspected of criminal offenses in general and sexual offenses in particular. However, from the data presented it is not possible to learn anything about the appellant's individual matter. First, the data from the Israel Police and the IPS do not indicate discrimination. The appellant brought numerical data but did not point to similar cases in which a different decision was made, and certainly did not show that there is a systematic and deliberate policy that contradicts the decision. Second, data regarding all state employees are irrelevant to our case. As has long been ruled, integrity and upholding the boundaries of the law are particularly important in the enforcement authorities, and one should not draw an equal line between the conduct required in the other branches of the civil service and the conduct required within the boundaries of these authorities. As stated in the High Court of Justice case 7141/05 Vitkin v. Commissioner of Police, [published in Nevo], paragraph 14 (February 27, 2006):
"It has already been ruled in the past that the level and image of the Israel Police in the eyes of the public are factors of paramount importance, and that public trust is an essential asset for the proper functioning of the governmental authority in Israel. This training must be protected while insisting that the Israeli police perform their duties for the benefit of the public with honesty, cleanliness, and upholding the boundaries of the law; This training is the basis of the functioning of the law enforcement authorities, and without it they will not be able to fulfill their tasks..."